ArticlePloS one2013
CD4 T-cell enumeration in a field setting: evaluation of CyFlow counter using the CD4 easy count kit-dry and Pima CD4 systems.
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Performance of point-of-care CD4 testing technologies in resource-constrained settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC infectious diseases · 2016Pooled it
- Viral suppression in the context of SARS-CoV-2 among children infected with HIV-1 monitored in five health facilities in Benin.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Field Performance of PIMA Point-of-Care Machine for CD4 Enumeration Under a Mobile HIV Counseling and Testing Program in Remote Fishing Communities of Lake Victoria, Uganda.AIDS research and human retroviruses · 2019Article
- Diagnosis of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2019Review
- Onsite healthcare worker acceptability and performance of the point-of-care Pima CD4 assay in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.African journal of laboratory medicine · 2019Article
- Evaluation of Specimen Types for Pima CD4 Point-of-Care Testing: Advantages of Fingerstick Blood Collection into an EDTA Microtube.PloS one · 2018Article
- Article
- Performance evaluation of the touchscreen-based Muse™ Auto CD4/CD4% single-platform system for CD4 T cell numeration in absolute number and in percentage using blood samples from children and adult patients living in the Central African Republic.Journal of translational medicine · 2016Article
- PIMA™ point-of-care testing for CD4 counts in predicting antiretroviral initiation in HIV-infected individuals in KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa.Southern African journal of HIV medicine · 2016Article
- Errors generated by a point-of-care CD4+ T-lymphocyte analyser: a retrospective observational study in nine countries.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2015Observational
- Laboratory and field evaluation of the Partec CyFlow miniPOC for absolute and relative CD4 T-cell enumeration.PloS one · 2015Article
- Article
- WHO multicenter evaluation of FACSCount CD4 and Pima CD4 T-cell count systems: instrument performance and misclassification of HIV-infected patients.Journal of acquired immune deficiency syndromes (1999) · 2014Article
- Serum Zinc Levels in Apparently Healthy Children in Nigeria: Are They Acceptable.Nigerian medical journal : journal of the Nigeria Medical AssociationArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFlow Cytometry (FCM) is still considered to be the method of choice for accurate CD4 enumeration. However, the use of FCM in developing countries is problematic due to their cost and complexity. Lower-cost technologies have been introduced. We evaluated CyFlow Counter together with its lyophilized reagents, and Pima CD4 in high-temperature area, using FACSCount as reference. MATERIALS AND
methodsWhole blood samples were consecutively collected by venipuncture from 111 HIV+ patients and 17 HIV-negative donors. CD4 T-cell enumeration was performed on CyFlow Counter, Pima CD4 and FACSCount.
resultsCyFlow Counter and Pima CD4 systems showed good correlation with FACSCount (slope of 0.82 and 0.90, and concordance ρc of 0.94 and 0.98, respectively). CyFlow Counter showed absolute or relative biases (LOA) of -63 cells/mm(3) (-245 to 120) or -9.8% (-38.1 to 18.4) respectively, and Pima CD4 showed biases (LOA) of -30 cells/mm(3) (-160 to 101) or -3.5% (-41.0 to 33.9%). CyFlow Counter and Pima CD4 showed respectively 106.7% and 105.9% of similarity with FACSCount. According to WHO-2010 ART initiation threshold of 350 cells/mm(3), CyFlow Counter and Pima CD4 showed respectively sensibility of 100% and 97%, and specificity of 91% and 93%. CyFlow Counter and Pima CD4 were strongly correlated (slope of 1.09 and ρc of 0.95). These alternative systems showed good agreement with bias of 33 cells/mm(3) (-132 to 203) or 6.3% (-31.2 to 43.8), and similarity of 104.3%.
conclusionCyFlow Counter using CD4 easy count kit-dry and Pima CD4 systems can accurately provide CD4 T-cell counts with acceptable agreement to those of FACSCount.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.